29 replies to this topic

[MikeMS]

I must be mad as the C14 is only on loan,

 

I have attached a celestron dovetail and with 30kg of counterweight the C14 sits balanced on top of the EQ6 mount. I know it is too heavy, but I want to try it at least once.

 

Just waited for a mains power adaptor for the mount and I will set it up outside. Do you need a photo? You can just see the mount buckling under the weight of the OTA.

 

Kind regards,

 

Mike.

[aa6ww]

Manually use the scope. If you try and turn it on and use the motors to steer the scope, your going to burn out your motors. Its not about the weight issue here and load capacity. The mount is undersized, but thats just part of the problem. If you try and use those motors to lift the scope after its leaned over, you very well cold damage those motors or and make them completely unreliable. Load capacity isn't just about how much the mount can safely carry, its also about how much weight the motors can move.
In your situation, balance the scope as best you can and use it manually without power applied. Even the tracking motor is going to be under more load than it was designed for. When the scope is upright, or moving in a downward direction, it wont mater. But if your trying to move the scope up, you may notice that the motors just stop working. By that time, it will be too late.
If you just wanna have fun with the scope, just make sure its balanced correctly.
There are still issues your going to have with the load bearings on the mount. You could easily damage them and not know it, but when your using a smaller scope, it will feel rough and notchy, even during tracking. Just knowing that your doing this, I would never purcahse that mount from you.
I think others seeing your message, and reading this, should also consider looking elsewhere if that mount ever comes up for sale.

...Ralph

[DuncanM]

The EQ-6  synscan uses micro-stepped stepper motors that will stall, but not burn out. The pre goto EQ-6 used 1/2 stepping stepper motors with a gear box that could be damaged by overloading, but careful balance with prevent this.

[MikeMS]

Gents,

 

Thank you for the warning and I will not switch on the motors. I have not yet and had the foresight to post here.

 

It is interesting what you say about the bearings, I do not know how bearings would accept 50kg (25kg OTA and counterweight) and not 60kg (30kg OTA and counterweight).

 

And you do not need to worry about the mount falling into your hands, the mount is here with me on the other side of the world and it will then go to the UK when I leave this country.

 

Kind regards,

 

Mike.

[DuncanM]

Again, if you have the goto version of the EQ-6, the motors will not be damaged. 

 

The Celestron CGEM DX which is sold as a C-14 mount is basically a slightly modified EQ-6, so I really don't think you have much to worry about.

[rmollise]

Manually use the scope. If you try and turn it on and use the motors to steer the scope, your going to burn out your motors. Its not about the weight issue here and load capacity. The mount is undersized, but thats just part of the problem. If you try and use those motors to lift the scope after its leaned over, you very well cold damage those motors or and make them completely unreliable. Load capacity isn't just about how much the mount can safely carry, its also about how much weight the motors can move.
In your situation, balance the scope as best you can and use it manually without power applied. Even the tracking motor is going to be under more load than it was designed for. When the scope is upright, or moving in a downward direction, it wont mater. But if your trying to move the scope up, you may notice that the motors just stop working. By that time, it will be too late.
If you just wanna have fun with the scope, just make sure its balanced correctly.
There are still issues your going to have with the load bearings on the mount. You could easily damage them and not know it, but when your using a smaller scope, it will feel rough and notchy, even during tracking. Just knowing that your doing this, I would never purcahse that mount from you.
I think others seeing your message, and reading this, should also consider looking elsewhere if that mount ever comes up for sale.

...Ralph

Nope. Extremely unlikely. Not only will the decently balanced load not put much more stress on the motors, the motors in the EQ-6 are steppers and not likely to "burn out" or be made "unreliable" in any event.

Edited by rmollise, 15 September 2014 - 06:02 AM.

[rmollise]

Gents,
 
Thank you for the warning and I will not switch on the motors. I have not yet and had the foresight to post here.
 
It is interesting what you say about the bearings, I do not know how bearings would accept 50kg (25kg OTA and counterweight) and not 60kg (30kg OTA and counterweight).
 
And you do not need to worry about the mount falling into your hands, the mount is here with me on the other side of the world and it will then go to the UK when I leave this country.
 
Kind regards,
 
Mike.

You can switch on the motors. Not that you will necessarily be pleased with the performance of the mount with a C14 on it.

Edited by rmollise, 15 September 2014 - 06:05 AM.

[Live_Steam_Mad]

Any pictures of this combo?

 

Regards,

 

Alistair G.

[Dunkstar]

Keep the tripod low or don't setup on a hard surface and the vibration shouldn't be too bad. You're going to need another counterweight at least.

[rmollise]

Yep. The tripod will be the weak link. It's not truly sufficient for a C11.

[Dunkstar]

+1 there can still be a little vibration with a C11 aboard.

[soldevilla]

works well. See my telescope here

http://www.cloudynig...-capacity-c-14/

and the best confirmation of the good results here (and I move the telescope with the motors ever!)

http://www.factoriap...ria.php?list=37

[rmollise]

Nice...but...This is an AZ-EQ-6...not the standard EQ-6.  I believe you also mentioned you only use the setup in alt-az mode (impossible for the OP's mount)...?

[soldevilla]

No, Rod, the image of my telescope is below in this thread. My mount is a EQ6 Syntreck with a big weightlifting counterweight. It have a counterweight more in the end of AR axis in order to bring near the center of gravity to the "hinge" I don´t know if it is the adecuate mechanical name And yes, I use the mount in equatorial mode, of course; and is better to move it, perfectly balanced, with the motors in mode high speed.

¿is it a perfect mount for a C14? No! but working carefully it can.

[rmollise]

Sorry I confused your setup for the one at the top of the thread. I'm glad it's working for you. Frankly, over the years I've found there's not a lot the good old EQ-6 can't do.

[thesubwaypusher]

Sorry I confused your setup for the one at the top of the thread. I'm glad it's working for you. Frankly, over the years I've found there's not a lot the good old EQ-6 can't do.

"Frankly, over the years I've found there's not a lot the good old EQ-6 can't do."

 

I am finding that out now with it and the C-14. Very happy with this mount.

[darkstar3d]

Saw a C14 setup today at Crutchfield! Makes my C11 looks toyish in comparision. Big, beefy, and 60% more light gathering!

[Live_Steam_Mad]

Manually use the scope. If you try and turn it on and use the motors to steer the scope, your going to burn out your motors. Its not about the weight issue here and load capacity. The mount is undersized, but thats just part of the problem. If you try and use those motors to lift the scope after its leaned over, you very well cold damage those motors or and make them completely unreliable. Load capacity isn't just about how much the mount can safely carry, its also about how much weight the motors can move.
In your situation, balance the scope as best you can and use it manually without power applied. Even the tracking motor is going to be under more load than it was designed for. When the scope is upright, or moving in a downward direction, it wont mater. But if your trying to move the scope up, you may notice that the motors just stop working. By that time, it will be too late.
If you just wanna have fun with the scope, just make sure its balanced correctly.
There are still issues your going to have with the load bearings on the mount. You could easily damage them and not know it, but when your using a smaller scope, it will feel rough and notchy, even during tracking. Just knowing that your doing this, I would never purcahse that mount from you.
I think others seeing your message, and reading this, should also consider looking elsewhere if that mount ever comes up for sale.

...Ralph

 

Did you use the EQ6 yourself with a C14 on it? What is your evidence that you would burn out EQ6 the motors? For example I use a CG5 ASGT with a C11 and it works just fine, I have used it for many months, and Celestron themselves sold the CG5 with a C11 as a package.

 

If the C14 is counterbalanced very well in both axes, it should take only a reasonable amount of force to move it into any position, why would the motors become unreliable on the EQ6? My CG5 motors sound just fine with my C11 for example, they didn't burn out or become unreliable, Goto pointing is very reasonable, and tracking is perfectly smooth at 700x magnification.

 

What is your evidence that the tracking motor is going to be over burdened in any bad way?

 

If you have personal experience of this mount and C14 then fair enough. Otherwise, I would like to hear the views from others who have actually used this mount / OTA combo.

 

Regards,

 

Alistair G.

[Live_Steam_Mad]

Gents,

 

Thank you for the warning and I will not switch on the motors. I have not yet and had the foresight to post here.

 

It is interesting what you say about the bearings, I do not know how bearings would accept 50kg (25kg OTA and counterweight) and not 60kg (30kg OTA and counterweight).

 

And you do not need to worry about the mount falling into your hands, the mount is here with me on the other side of the world and it will then go to the UK when I leave this country.

 

Kind regards,

 

Mike.

 

Is there a counterweight extension bar available for the EQ6 ? I use a ScopeStuff 6" counterweight extension bar for my CG-5 with C11 and I use 1.8Kg, 3.4Kg, and 5Kg weights, quite easy to lift it all and mount it, OTA is balanced very reasonably and the mount works great. Damping time is 2 seconds at 700x on concrete patio with no vibration suppression pads.

 

I would please like very much to know how the EQ6 / NEQ6 handles a C14 or the M12 if anyone has used the combination?

 

Regards,

 

AG

Edited by Live_Steam_Mad, 12 August 2015 - 01:06 PM.

[skycamper]

Yes the counter weight extension is available from OPT or Orion. It's all chrome and somewhat expensive for what it is. $80 or about. Fits the EQ6 or Atlas mounts.

Edited by skycamper, 12 August 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[rmollise]

Did you use the EQ6 yourself with a C14 on it? What is your evidence that you would burn out EQ6 the motors? For example I use a CG5 ASGT with a C11 and it works just fine, I have used it for many months, and Celestron themselves sold the CG5 with a C11 as a package.
 
If the C14 is counterbalanced very well in both axes, it should take only a reasonable amount of force to move it into any position, why would the motors become unreliable on the EQ6? My CG5 motors sound just fine with my C11 for example, they didn't burn out or become unreliable, Goto pointing is very reasonable, and tracking is perfectly smooth at 700x magnification.
 
What is your evidence that the tracking motor is going to be over burdened in any bad way?
 
If you have personal experience of this mount and C14 then fair enough. Otherwise, I would like to hear the views from others who have actually used this mount / OTA combo.
 
Regards,
 
Alistair G.

There is no evidence...just assumption.

As I said, stepper don't "burn out" anyway.

The challenge for putting a C14 on an Atlas is largely the tripod. You want better than the stock one.

[charles genovese]

Of course mounts don't CATastrophically fail when they are loaded with heavier ota's-they just get "jiggly". The scope should always be balanced of course. It only requires finger pressure to move a properly balanced scope and of course the motors have no more stress. Overcoming the slight extra inertia with a motor geared this low and moving so slow is o problem.  

[rolo]

For the heck of it, I tried a C14 on a Losmandy G8 w/ G11 Saddle and the mount could support it but it was rather shaky when focusing. When slewing or centering an object while looking through the eyepiece, once the slew would stop the view would jiggle for a couple of seconds. Then I put the G8 head in a G11 tripod and it was considerably steadier, not as good as the G11 but much better.

[gnowellsct]

 

Manually use the scope. If you try and turn it on and use the motors to steer the scope, your going to burn out your motors. Its not about the weight issue here and load capacity. The mount is undersized, but thats just part of the problem. If you try and use those motors to lift the scope after its leaned over, you very well cold damage those motors or and make them completely unreliable. Load capacity isn't just about how much the mount can safely carry, its also about how much weight the motors can move.
In your situation, balance the scope as best you can and use it manually without power applied. Even the tracking motor is going to be under more load than it was designed for. When the scope is upright, or moving in a downward direction, it wont mater. But if your trying to move the scope up, you may notice that the motors just stop working. By that time, it will be too late.
If you just wanna have fun with the scope, just make sure its balanced correctly.
There are still issues your going to have with the load bearings on the mount. You could easily damage them and not know it, but when your using a smaller scope, it will feel rough and notchy, even during tracking. Just knowing that your doing this, I would never purcahse that mount from you.
I think others seeing your message, and reading this, should also consider looking elsewhere if that mount ever comes up for sale.

...Ralph

Nope. Extremely unlikely. Not only will the decently balanced load not put much more stress on the motors, the motors in the EQ-6 are steppers and not likely to "burn out" or be made "unreliable" in any event.

 

+1 the whole point of steppers is that they know when to give up rather than burn themselves out like some stoopid servo.    GN

[Wildetelescope]

 

Manually use the scope. If you try and turn it on and use the motors to steer the scope, your going to burn out your motors. Its not about the weight issue here and load capacity. The mount is undersized, but thats just part of the problem. If you try and use those motors to lift the scope after its leaned over, you very well cold damage those motors or and make them completely unreliable. Load capacity isn't just about how much the mount can safely carry, its also about how much weight the motors can move.
In your situation, balance the scope as best you can and use it manually without power applied. Even the tracking motor is going to be under more load than it was designed for. When the scope is upright, or moving in a downward direction, it wont mater. But if your trying to move the scope up, you may notice that the motors just stop working. By that time, it will be too late.
If you just wanna have fun with the scope, just make sure its balanced correctly.
There are still issues your going to have with the load bearings on the mount. You could easily damage them and not know it, but when your using a smaller scope, it will feel rough and notchy, even during tracking. Just knowing that your doing this, I would never purcahse that mount from you.
I think others seeing your message, and reading this, should also consider looking elsewhere if that mount ever comes up for sale.

...Ralph

 

Did you use the EQ6 yourself with a C14 on it? What is your evidence that you would burn out EQ6 the motors? For example I use a CG5 ASGT with a C11 and it works just fine, I have used it for many months, and Celestron themselves sold the CG5 with a C11 as a package.

 

If the C14 is counterbalanced very well in both axes, it should take only a reasonable amount of force to move it into any position, why would the motors become unreliable on the EQ6? My CG5 motors sound just fine with my C11 for example, they didn't burn out or become unreliable, Goto pointing is very reasonable, and tracking is perfectly smooth at 700x magnification.

 

What is your evidence that the tracking motor is going to be over burdened in any bad way?

 

If you have personal experience of this mount and C14 then fair enough. Otherwise, I would like to hear the views from others who have actually used this mount / OTA combo.

 

Regards,

 

Alistair G.

 

Just because you have the mount balanced, does not mean that the extra load will not adversely effect your mount.  The problem here is angular momentum. Once moving, it is hard to stop, once stopped, it is hard to get started again.  More mass, well balanced or not, means harder stop and starting and slewing.  In theory, overloading any mount may lead to significant wear and tear on the whole assembly.  

 

That said, the Atlas has a long history of people putting 50-60 lbs of stuff on it without to much problem, at least over the period of several years.  I have had mine for about 6 years and have used it with as much as 40 lbs of scope with a big 10 inch F4.7 Newtonian without too much problem so you might get away with a C14 for a while at least.  I agree the stock tripod is your biggest enemy.  I have my Atlas on a Parallax pier and it has improved the Atlas performance by light years.  Personally, I would want at least a G11 with that larger a scope.  The Atlas' big brother could be a good contender too, if you did not plan to move things around.  

 

Cheers!

 

JMD